The Zimmerman case?

  On 7/15/2013 at 1:25 AM, MisterE said:

..you see, this isn't the Netherlands. here we have something called 'self defense'. i don't know if they have it or if it exists where you are.

 

 

Yep, it exists here, but it has to be proportional.

good thing we have a court system in place that insists on these things being proven before someone can be placed in prison for the rest of their lives. you could easily find yourself in a position where you are happy to have that too.

You fools! look at you all bickering like a bunch of fucking panelists on the Nancy Grace show.

 

Nebraska say the public was gullible and they eat the media's narrative, well this thread is a perfect example of how people enjoy this kind of stuff, they enjoy tragedy so they can put their morality hats on and fight to the death to defend their pseudo morals.

 

This is disgusting and i hope all you know it.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Deer

how can you post your opinions on a subject, in a thread about that subject, and criticize everyone else simply for doing that while thinking you are above that same criticism? i agree with you about the media trumping this up into something it wasn't. but to get to that point where you can see that you actually have to look at the facts of the case, which is what people here have been talking about. am i a fool for saying people are innocent until proven guilty (which is in contrast to the media all but declaring him guilty before the trial even began)? what exactly are you saying here deer?

 

or

 

no, ur nancy grace!

I'm just saying, it seems obvious that you all need permission from the media to PASSIONATELY discuss a media approved subject. Its very easy to discuss these type of stuff, its a way for people with rotten or no morals at all to show they they do really have morals, or to forward their fucking agendas.

 

The way i see it the media trows a bone and everyone goes for it, its sad.

  On 7/15/2013 at 4:03 AM, Deer said:

I'm just saying, it seems obvious that you all need permission from the media to PASSIONATELY discuss a media approved subject. Its very easy to discuss these type of stuff, its a way for people with rotten or no morals at all to show they they do really have morals, or to forward their fucking agendas.

 

The way i see it the media trows a bone and everyone goes for it, its sad.

 

 

...which you have eagerly joined in to call out the mongrels that bought into such silly topics. Fuck calling the kettle black, that shit was charred to a crisp by you long long ago.

yeah ironic,blah blah blah but someone need to say it, the idea needs to be implanted in your head maybe one day you'll learn.

 

You are literally taking a tragedy (that in the grand scheme of things doesn't mater) and making it your own little battle of agendas and morals.

 

Its rotten, this society is rotten, tragedy is becoming the people's tv show.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Deer

  On 7/15/2013 at 4:13 AM, Deer said:

yeah ironic,blah blah blah but someone need to say it, the idea needs to be implanted in your head maybe one day you'll learn.

 

You are literally taking a tragedy (that in the grand scheme of things doesn't mater) and making it your own little battle of agendas and morals.

 

Its rotten, this society is rotten, tragedy is becoming the people's tv show.

 

 

this is rich coming from a guy that constantly argues the pointlessness of fighting against things.

I think as long as the debate stays focused, and people avoid making things personal that it is healthy to discuss. It is when people resort to name calling and baser things. Making unsubstantiated accusations that things turn from being productive to being destructive.

its also rich coming from a guy who has on a few occasions defended the obama administration by downplaying any role it may be able to have in things such as the NSA spying.

 

considering how obamas very own DOJ spent thousands on protests to get zim arrested down in florida, considering obama, our president's statement about how trayvon would look like his son (which isn't at all fucked up an unpresidential of a thing to do, rite? the PRESIDENT taking sides in an event that might lead to a jury trial, possibly poisoning the well so to speak. no, nothing completely fucked or wrong with that), following the lead of al sharpton's similar statement, al sharpton being employed by msnbc (for some reason, instead of being in jail or debt for that tawana brawley hoax he knowingly helped perpetuate to create more racial division, and got away with scott-free, not even paying for the suit he lost, nor apologizing for the race-fueled crown heights riot he helped incite which led to more death, or any of his various other criminal activities) and who met with at LEAST eric holder (if not obama) during those protests, and seems to have played the role of go-between across the protests, the white house, and msnbc, and considering that now the fed wants to see if they can go after zim themselves...

 

yet deer wants to criticize the media, and defend obama from ever having his hand in anything bad. let's see, the guy was in an election year, and lots of people were saying that a key demographic might not be as likely to get out and vote for him the 2nd time, after they already won the novelty of having the first black president. so what do? keep them riled up, hating 'the man' for holding them down, and give them a common enemy- white man. but, uh oh! turns out zimmerman was hispanic (half-white, just like obama himself), instead of the all white jew they expected based on his name! AFTER plenty of outlets gladly ran with the headline 'white man shoots black kid', with claims of zim being white continuing for over a month after the event. then they realize hey he LOOKS hispanic and people are going to start seeing these pics, so they come up with out of thin air, the name 'white hispanic'.

 

yes deer. this was about keeping the country divided. but it wasn't JUST the media. who do you think put pressure on florida to fire their chief of police and hire another, with 'will you arrest zim' almost surely being the key requisite? what, exactly does the media stand to gain from creating division? good ratings for a week? think bigger. the gov wants us divided. it's how they conquer us. the media is nothing but their propaganda arm at this point. if obama really cared about racial unity, he wouldn't have jumped up and down on the bellows. he would have said something like 'we need to calm down during these tense times and let the justice system play out, and step back and not interfere with it, and have faith that true justice will be reached. express opinions peacefully. don't let the sensationalist media rile you up.' or something to that affect. instead he throws in and picks sides and says the dead kid could look like his imaginary son. wtf is that? thats fucking amateur and blatant as all fuck. can anyone really believe he wants everyone to get along? he wanted them riled up and full of anger/hate. he benefits from it. just like sharpton and jackson. look at them, they're rich as all hell. there's plenty of profit and power to be made stoking the flames of racial or cultural division.

  On 7/15/2013 at 2:14 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  On 7/14/2013 at 8:37 PM, SR4 said:

 

  On 7/14/2013 at 7:12 PM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 7/14/2013 at 1:37 PM, elusive4 said:

 

  On 7/14/2013 at 12:31 PM, goDel said:

Omg

 

  Quote

TAMPA, Fla. -- Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

 

Wtf

 

do you not perform any due diligence re: your commentary?

she left the scene to obtain the weapon, only then to return and fire off the shot. she had opportunity to escape; apples to oranges. oh, you may have also missed the fact that she had fired the weapon in the general direction of children.

 

 

Apples and oranges because she was actually in a position of "self-defense" far more than Zimmerman ever was. That's the absurdity of the laws and judicial system of Florida. One judge thinks a woman confronting her abusive husband isn't "standing your ground" but another judge thought a man who followed and approached an unknown kid he thought was 'up to know' good was "standing his ground." That's absolute bullshit.

 

She was charged a mandatory 20 years for a law that has unintended consequences legally, based on a law passed in 1999 intended for situations like robbery, not citizens in situations like this. If she had plead guilty for attempted murder she would of served 3, three years, and not twenty for literally discharging a gun.

 

That law, the 10-20-Life was passed in 1999, signed by the same governor, Jeb Bush, as the "Stand Your Ground" law passed in 2005. The laws are in absolute conflict with each other in regard to sentencing and intent. Even the most dumbfuck legislation could, and should, pass laws in Florida to rectify the differences, either by altering the sentencing terms or repealing the laws altogether. The fact is these are not sound and sincere laws, these were both efforts for politicians to boost their election appeal to their voter base. The 10-20-Life law was endorsed by anti-gun groups and in that year even conservative legislators were pressured act against gun violence. The Stand Your Ground Law, praised and supported by the limited government, pro-gun groups NRA and ALEC, was passed by legislators so they could boost their pro-gun, "law and order" image. Both of these absurd cases reflect the blowback from passing these laws. And instead of fixing the problems they created, the Florida legislators will simply go on Hannity or Limbaugh or Maddow or whatever fucking cable talk shows are airing right now and utter their bullshit rhetoric. The rest will stay mute and attend fundraising parties. I can guarantee you very few will try to address these issues legally.

 

As for Zimmerman, I'm not going to touch on race issues or bias or the "debatle" aspects of this case, it comes down to this: Zimmerman should of called the police, gone home, and locked his door. Period. Instead he was overzealous and irresponsible and deliberately instigated a confrontation. That's not self-defense, it's anything but. That not guilty finding is a fucking farce. Only delusions and distortions, and pure misinformation can remotely frame this as self-defense.

 

 

 

But, again, this is the overwhelming deciding factor, reasonable doubt. Maybe him racially profiling was motive, but motive alone is NOT enough to convict someone of murder.

 

Also, as far as I know, the Zimmerman defense dropped the "Stand your ground" defense. Instead what was claimed was that Zimmerman was on the ground being pummeled at the point of doing damage (skull to the concrete), thus he was legally justified in using deadly force to escape the situation. Whether its true or not is a different story. The whole point is ultimately there was not enough evidence to convict.

 

 

Look, personally I agree with you. He was overly paranoid, and way overstepped his boundaries which resulted in a dead kid. I'm not saying he's innocent. And hes not out of the woods yet concerning civil suits and the perjury/molestation charges. But for the charge of 2nd degree murder there was only circumstantial evidence, there was a 4 minute gap in time in which no testimony other than Zimmerman's could account for, you have a voice on a tape that Martin's parents couldn't recognize, you have inconclusive DNA evidence, and you have incredibly faulty eyewitness testimony, one of the weakest forms of evidence within a court of law, especially for a murder case. Ultimately everyone in the US and elsewhere thinks or believes they know what happened. But that's simply not enough to put a man in prison for murder, and the failure of the prosecution to meet the burden of proof is evidence of that.

 

Had this occurred in daylight with far more eyewitnesses, if there was videotape, I have a feeling there would be a different outcome. But that's not what happened.

 

We need to emotionally detach ourselves from this for just a second and adjust our criticisms. If this is injustice, it is due to a overreaching prosecution, and a hell of a lot of luck on Zimmerman's side. Criticize the system that outlines the burden of proof on the prosecution and state law. They are the ones that failed you.

 

 

 

 

OH PRAISE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST A BIT OF INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT

 

 

Appreciate the response SR4, I agree. After I've calmed down and accepted the situation and reality of it that's basically where my frustration lays: the system. I have to stress I find the fierce apologists for Zimmerman and the anger and hate from some of Trayvon's sympathizers, and all the media catering to those factions, the most frustrating and upsetting figures in this whole discussion.

 

I sincerely hope the Florida legislature will get to the bottom line and correct and better frame it's laws and honestly it's not a completely impossible event. New Hampshire tried repealing their "stand your ground law" this year. Even though it was both unnecessary in that state and ultimately failed, it at least indicated that some legislators are willing to try. Before the abortion law clusterfuck in the Texas legislation this year they actually had a very focused and productive session, despite a large contingent of inept, corrupt, and extreme legislators in the ranks. If enough lawmakers in Florida and elsewhere forget the aimless and destructive rhetoric and actually do their jobs we could see some legal progress in the aftermath of this incident.

gonn say real quick. it looks bad when the source you use, politifact, declares what you just said as false.

 

edit: to Mr. E, not you Joshua. will type up a response in a bit.

Edited July 15, 2013 by SR4

  On 7/15/2013 at 3:12 AM, MisterE said:

good thing we have a court system in place that insists on these things being proven before someone can be placed in prison for the rest of their lives. you could easily find yourself in a position where you are happy to have that too.

So if you can't prove someone used self defense beyond the shadow of a doubt, he should be walking away as a free man? Who said he would be in prison for the rest of his life if this case would have been done under Dutch law?

( and as Djeroek already mentioned, the whole self defense thing was translated into the proportionality stuff.)

 

Nevermind though. At this point, the relativity of laws and morals seems off limits. I'll stop trying to present some other perspective immediately.

 

There's no world outside of Texas. I'll shut up. Everything is safe again. All those silly incomprehensible ideas from different places which are irrelevant to your interests. I'm sorry if you had to try to read it all.

 

One question though, if people talk about passionate discussions, are they referring to the ones in the media, or here in this thread? Again, this is coming from a crazy outsider here. Because I see it mentioned, and I only see a small part of the passion in the media being presented here. And most people responding with a base fear to stay away from it as much as possible anyways.

 

Could be me though. (Outsiders have this thing of having a different perspective and all. You can call it assburgers if you like)

  On 7/15/2013 at 5:27 AM, SR4 said:

gonn say real quick. it looks bad when the source you use, politifact, declares what you just said as false.

 

edit: to Mr. E, not you Joshua. will type up a response in a bit.

it may look kind of bad but the most they can do is rate it 'mostly false' and say that the doj was there to make sure the protests stayed peaceful. that's probably the best argument against the allegation that you are going to get, and it's fairly thin. on the other had it's also admitting that they were down there and involved. it's the easiest thing in the world to say 'we were just there to watch them and make sure they remained peaceful' and how can it be proven otherwise? do you really think that's all they were doing down there though? honestly? just stood and watched?

Edited July 15, 2013 by MisterE

i dunno. were the Dorner cops there to just stand by and bring the guy in to a fair trial?

no. obama sent them and his drones, to silence the brotha

it's worst than the holocoste, which is ironick that shooter was white Jew

here are some of the actual docs that were actually obtained by the request:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/152940112/Protest-Deployment

"to provide interregional support for protest deployment in Florida"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/151071226/Coordinating-MAR-30-Rally

"to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/151071222/Teaching-How-to-Protest-APR-11

"to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male."

 

that's what the actual gov docs say. "to provide technical assistance for the preparation of" hmm...

 

hmmmmmmmm.....

sorry, what are you saying MisterE? Make it plain so us simple folks can follow along. You're saying the gov't paid to stage protests to further the racial divide in US?

...and I think at this point I shall stop

yes, and that obama himself selected a white jew to be the focal point of his plan to racially divide the country in order to win teh votes and how come all of you used to be so mean to george bush and now whenever obama does bad stuff you all suck his dick and stuff?!

http://youtu.be/0GC636uMf1w

 

Well, i for one prefer sucking brown dicks. They're way sweeter than those teeny sour white ones. Yeah, I'm racist like that.

I fingered Michelle does that count?

i've raised some valid points. i dont understand how SOME people here have no problem agreeing that the media was making a racial thing where there likely wasn't one (with the exception of trayvon who liked getting into fights and saw a 'cracker' who he decided to turn around and assault), but apparently it's much too far fetched that the gov would ever be involved in something like that. riiiight. because the media really stands to gain the most from it. the media has a running history with enjoying the vast majority of votes from all of the various minority groups out there, which helps keeps them fat, rich, and powerful. the media actually has to worry about keeping those votes.

 

makes sense. throw gas on a fire that's nationwide just for one week of high ratings. no way the gov could be involved at all, even with the various examples of them being involved which i've pointed to. don't bother actually picking apart any of those examples though guys. i don't expect it after being here as long as i have.

  On 7/15/2013 at 6:37 AM, SR4 said:

...and I think at this point I shall stop

i post links to the actual docs which show that they were involved in actually organizing the protests (not just watching them), cue sr4 leaving thread. BIG SURPRISE Edited July 15, 2013 by MisterE